I've listened to podcasts of scientists who thought they were smart enough to discuss ethics and morality objectively. After about fifteen minutes of reducing the argument down, they were stuck on very obvious questions, like does life have value, why is reproduction seen as a positive, why does there seem to be a common morality between geographically isolated civilizations, etc.
A philosopher could answer those questions in 30 seconds.
Life has value, obviously, because if I offered to kill you painlessly in your sleep you would say no.
Reproduction is good because it perpetuates society, which supports life.
There are common morals between isolated civilizations because those morals are the things that protect life and society.
And for every opinion your philosopher gave, I could present a philosopher with a contradictory opinion. Philosophy is opinion, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. And all opinions are irrelevant in the face of cold, objective logic, which is math, not philosophy. If philosophy students were smart, they be studying math, not philosophy.
Philosophers come up with the questions that mathematicians and scientists try to answer. Do you think a document such as the constitution cold have been written by mathmaticians or scientist or was it by philosophers?
Hell most of modern technology is dreamt out by writers before they're conceptualized or invented. Do you think Steve Jobs envisioned the iphone or he thought tricorders were cool and "hey i can make a hand held computer."
on and on. Philosophers have their place in society even if the majority want to sit around smoke pot and talk about gardening.
That's not true, it depends on the field. Also, theologians and philosophers are just the people too stupid to do real science.
I've listened to podcasts of scientists who thought they were smart enough to discuss ethics and morality objectively. After about fifteen minutes of reducing the argument down, they were stuck on very obvious questions, like does life have value, why is reproduction seen as a positive, why does there seem to be a common morality between geographically isolated civilizations, etc.
A philosopher could answer those questions in 30 seconds.
Life has value, obviously, because if I offered to kill you painlessly in your sleep you would say no.
Reproduction is good because it perpetuates society, which supports life.
There are common morals between isolated civilizations because those morals are the things that protect life and society.
And for every opinion your philosopher gave, I could present a philosopher with a contradictory opinion. Philosophy is opinion, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. And all opinions are irrelevant in the face of cold, objective logic, which is math, not philosophy. If philosophy students were smart, they be studying math, not philosophy.
Philosophers come up with the questions that mathematicians and scientists try to answer. Do you think a document such as the constitution cold have been written by mathmaticians or scientist or was it by philosophers?
Hell most of modern technology is dreamt out by writers before they're conceptualized or invented. Do you think Steve Jobs envisioned the iphone or he thought tricorders were cool and "hey i can make a hand held computer."
on and on. Philosophers have their place in society even if the majority want to sit around smoke pot and talk about gardening.